4DCA Division 2 Oral Argument 2026/05/05 Afternoon Session - May 05, 2026

argument

4DCA Division 2 Oral Argument 2026/05/05 Afternoon Session

California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two 44 min 8 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What procedural steps are taken at the start of the oral argument?

Justice McKinster 7:11

Madam Clerk, can you hear me?

Unknown 7:15

Hello, Your Honor, I can.

Justice McKinster 7:17

Great. I will be just waiting in the background. The remaining panel members will join us at 1.30 and will commence at that time. So I'm going to mute at this time, Ms. Daniels.

Unknown 7:32

Okay. Thank you.

Unknown 11:40

Please be seated. Madam Clerk, do we have Justice McKinster online?

Justice McKinster 11:45

Yes. I was muted, Justice Minitrust. Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. This is Justice McKinster speaking. I'm appearing remotely through Zoom. This current panel is assembled to hear just one case. Number nine on the calendar, it's the matter of the people versus Oscar Alvarado Escalera. The panel members who are appearing on this besides me are in the courtroom. Justice Frank Minitrez has just spoken to you. Also, we are joined by Justice Corey Lee. uh we will be taking a brief recess after this case uh in order to reconstitute the panel for the final case of the afternoon so with all that in mind i'm just going to go ahead and call number nine it's the matter of people versus oscar escalera and if we can have appearances for the record and the clerk would appreciate a spelling of the last name uh uh for her benefit starting with

Mr. Schechter 12:50

mr schachter are you

Justice McKinster 12:52

good afternoon Mr.

Mr. Schechter 12:53

Schechter, can you hear me?

Justice McKinster 12:54

Yes, Your Honor. Can you hear me, Your Honor? I can hear you. I'm not seeing you. Are you appearing by phone or on Zoom?

Mr. Schechter 13:05

Your Honor, just by

Justice McKinster 13:08

phone. I can see that now at the bottom of my screen, and that's perfectly all right. Would you kindly spell your last name for us, Mr. Schechter?

Mr. Schechter 13:15

It's Schechter, S-C-H-E-C-H-T-E-R. Thank you.

Justice McKinster 13:24

And for the people?

Paige Hazard 13:28

Deputy Attorney General Paige Hazard, appearing for the people. H-A-Z-A-R-D.

Justice McKinster 13:35

Thanks, Ms.

How does Mr. Schechter argue that the protective order should be struck and not remanded?

Justice McKinster 13:35

Hazard. Mr. Schechter, you do have 15 minutes of time to include your opening argument and your response to Ms. Hazard. Had you wished to reserve some part of your time to respond to Ms. Hazard? Five minutes, please. All right, you're going to hear an audible warning at 5 minutes from our clerk. Hopefully you'll hear it. Sometimes in the heat of battle, it's missed. With that in mind, then, we'd like to hear what you have to say, Mr. Schechter.

Mr. Schechter 14:10

May it please the court. I wanted to focus on one particular issue, which is the protective order issue and the the tentative decision to remand it for uh consideration under 136.2i i totally agree with the tentative in terms of striking the order under 1202.5 um but um the remand contemplated here i would submit it unnecessary and improper it gives the prosecution a second bite at the apple, gives them an opportunity to obtain a discretionary protective order that it never requested at sentencing and never appealed the absence of. And it does so at the cost of additional judicial proceedings that serve no corrective purpose. And I think the posture here is straightforward. The AG concedes that the non-visitation order imposed under PC 1202.05 is unauthorized.

Mr. Schechter 15:15

The remedy for that error is equally straightforward. It's to strike the order. That fully resolves the only illegality in the judgment. What remand would do is something different. It would not only correct what the trial court did, it would invite the trial court to do something new, namely to consider imposing a discretionary order under 136.2i that was never sought below and was never part of the judgment being reviewed. And it's not an unauthorized sentence problem in the sense that something required by law was omitted. The only unauthorized component is the order that was actually imposed. Once that order is stricken, the judgment is lawful. Any contention that the court should have considered a 136.2i order raises at most an issue about the exercise of discretion.

Mr. Schechter 16:08

It doesn't create a sentence that's illegal on its face. and doesn't trigger this court's authority to remand for sua sponte correction. The statutory authority that the court, quote, shall consider a protective order does not change the analysis. That directive governs the trial court's obligations, does not authorize an appellate court to reopen sentencing in the absence of a request, in the absence of an objection, in the absence of an appeal by the people.